Help Understanding EQ Techniques

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aspirations
  • Start date Start date
A

Aspirations

New member
Sorry this post is so long but I will greatly appreciate any help I can get with this question. I have read everything I can get my hands on…all the books and articles on mixing and EQ I can find…and still can’t overcome this problem.

I have been working quite awhile at trying to learn how to create mixes that sound more professional and sound more consistent across the different systems that I play them on. I have the classic problem of sounds (relatively) okay on the system I use to mix it but sounds like garbage on almost everything else I play it. I believe that it is mostly an EQ issue. I know compression can give a recording more punch and make it louder but I don’t think that is the problem I’m hearing. Let me start by explaining my process.

When I’m creating my recording, I usually have some idea of the sound I want for each part (we’re talking primarily electric guitar). Its usually a tone/sound that I’m referencing from a commercial CD. I try to get my sound as close as I can with the gear I have by monitoring my signal and the commercial source through the same speakers. Often I can’t get very close but I come up with something I hope is decent. Once I get as close as I can I record it. Then I use a parametric EQ plug-in (Cakewalk) to try and fine-tune it more closely, again listening to my recording and the commercial “reference” through the same amp/speakers. This is where my real problem starts. I can never find the settings to get me there. I have all the guides about where to boost and cut to make it more/less nasal, more/less airy, more/less warm…etc. But I always just end up sweeping up and down with enough gain or cut that I can hear a real difference and getting nowhere. This is the first thing I would like help with. It just seems like there are too many combinations and permutations of frequencies and levels to boost and cut for me to ever stumble onto the same or even similar sound as the reference. Is there any tool I can use to help me analyze and compare the spectrum of the two recordings; is that the right approach to take? Or am I making it too hard. Somehow I can’t see Daniel Lanois (my own personal Tone-God) doing such a thing. Should I being using a parametric or a graphic EQ? Any suggestions?

Now, the next part of my question. In the few cases where I get somewhat close to where I think I may have matched my commercial reference, it still sounds like garbage when played on a different system…yet my commercial reference will sound reasonably, or relatively, good on that system. Its especially bad when played on a system that is inferior to the one I used for mixing. Which brings me to the next question. I’m using a budget-priced consumer receiver and inexpensive Infinity bookshelf speakers for mixing. My theory was that if I made my track sound like the commercial track through this system it would also sound like it when played on another system. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Obviously there is something I am missing about what you get out of studio monitors…apparently my track sounds even less like the commercial track than the limitations of my speakers will allow me to hear. So the idea that just knowing your speakers is sufficient is flawed. Not that I ever really doubted that, just trying to understand why it is. Do cheaper speakers just lump the frequencies together more and then it becomes apparent that you really weren’t hearing what was actually there when you move it to another system that lumps it together wrong in a different way? Does this make any sense? I’m more or less ready to make the investment in monitors but I like to try to get as good as I can with what I’ve got so when I get something new I can really take off…plus understanding this better should really help me decide what to buy. So any help will be greatly appreciated. Again, my questions are:

1) recommended technique for eq’ing a signal to match a reference recording
2) more insight into resolving the “amateur sound / mix doesn’t translate” problem and how quality studio monitors help you get there versus matching a reference on regular hi-fi speakers
 
Quality monitors will let you hear details that stereo speakers will mask over. Getting a pair would be a big step towards your goal. Having stereo speakers hooked for reference, is also a good idea. Mix with the monitors, then check it on the stereo speakers. Having a properly treated control room should be high on your list, also. Put up some audio clips so members can give suggestions on your mixes.
 
Aspirations said:
In the few cases where I get somewhat close to where I think I may have matched my commercial reference, it still sounds like garbage when played on a different system…yet my commercial reference will sound reasonably, or relatively, good on that system.

Welcome to the world of recording. :D


Then I use a parametric EQ plug-in (Cakewalk) to try and fine-tune it more closely, again listening to my recording and the commercial “reference” through the same amp/speakers. This is where my real problem starts.


You're right. This is usually where the problem starts. :D What you need to understand is that most of the commercial CD's you're listening to for reference pretty much started out sounding awfully close to the finished product before they ever pulled out the EQ. This is ussually because those who recorded these commercial references were using world-class facilities and top-of-the-line instruments using impecable technique by seasoned professionals with years of experience.

I can never find the settings to get me there.


Those settings probably don't exist. You have to get things as close as possible during the tracking and mixing phases if you ever want to "get there."


My theory was that if I made my track sound like the commercial track through this system it would also sound like it when played on another system.


My theory is that if you get things sounding close to the commercial track while tracking, then it will sound like that commercial track on other systems after you mixdown.

Do cheaper speakers just lump the frequencies together more and then it becomes apparent that you really weren’t hearing what was actually there when you move it to another system that lumps it together wrong in a different way? Does this make any sense?


Hmmm. You know, actually it kinda' does. You really aren't that far off ! :D


1) recommended technique for eq’ing a signal to match a reference recording.


answer: Track it that way.

more insight into resolving the “amateur sound / mix doesn’t translate” problem and how quality studio monitors help you get there versus matching a reference on regular hi-fi speakers

There's so much more to it than just the speakers. A lot of it has to do with the room you're monitoring in. You could take a whole accoustic theory 101 class on it, but the gist of it is that your room will lie to you every bit as much -- even more so -- than your speakers will. Try this experiment -- If you can, that is -- take your system outside somewhere and listen to some mixes on it out there. It should reveal a lot of things to you. Make careful note of how things sound out there, because that's really the only ideal accoustic environment in which to mix, albeit almost totally impracticle. :D

Bluebear has got some really good articles for the beginning novice on his site. You should go to www.bluebearsound.com and click on some of his articles and start filling your head.
 
To add to what Chessrock is saying about tracking, you don't know what the instrument you're tracking actually sounds like, if you aren't listening to it through descent monitors, in a treated room.
 
Here's an angle for you.
When you're setting up a track for recording, maybe even comparing it to a ref. cd/mix, you're still at this point working in 'solo mode' to make these 'tonal' decissions. We all know this flat-out doesn't work very well (like setting eq in solo..) - unless or until it gets put into the context of the mix.
Maybe a more parctical goal would be; set up for good solid tones and in the style you want, but then shift to 'it is what it is' mode, then build for there.
 
Thanks very much for these replies. They are a help. All of this makes sense and I think I've kind of been in a can't see the forest for the trees situation. I can kind of see now that its really not all one problem, its several little ones. A big part of my problem may be guitar gear or knowing how to use it (or how to play for that matter). I think the speakers are a contributor...and the room as well...does everyone agree with Chessrock on the significance of the room?

Funny Mixsit...that is usually what I end up doing as a compromise but you're exactly right...may as well start there because its impossible to nail those tones, especially with my gear. And you're right again...If I finally do get it I'll probably end up losing it when I try to get the whole mix to work together anyway.

I think first step is decent monitors along with pulling in some cheap computer speakers or something for a reference check for cheaper systems. As for the room I'll have to think on that for awhile. Other than that sounds like just more practice! Dang, I was hoping for some magic key to unlock the door.

Thanks very much!
 
Aspirations said:
...does everyone agree with Chessrock on the significance of the room?

Try playing some constant low-midrange tones (500hz-ish) and walk around in the room. You'll likely hear huge dips and peaks as you move around. These dips are happening at frequencies all over the lower half of the spectrum due to the room vs your listening position.
You can compensate somewhat for an untreated room and less-than great monitoring in general. Learn how your system relates with ref. cd's (that's #1 no matter how great the setup right!), and use feedback you get by listening at different volumes, positions in the room and even from other rooms.
It just means we have to work A LOT harder in down in the trenches. :D
 
Back
Top